You're a...... CROOK Captain Hook

Transcript

This transcript was generated automatically and may contain errors — the audio is the record.

0:00:47 Thomas: Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments. It's Wednesday night, it's Thursday probably, and that means it is time for another practice bar exam question. That's right, it is Thomas Takes the Bar Exam number 71. That means we're going to get the answer to question 70, last week's question, and a new, fresh question 71. Let's see how I did, let's see you how you all did, and we'll get to Heather Veronini in a moment. But first, I'm Thomas. That over there is Lydia. How you doing?

0:01:13 Lydia: Hi, I am doing pretty well. I've been, uh, coming up for air from our Gavel Gavel content.

0:01:18 Thomas: Yeah, this week we're not all bantered out. We're freshly ready to banter. In fact, we're ready to Banter Extra because we were so practiced. Like, we bantered so much last week.

0:01:28 Lydia: We're pros.

0:01:28 Thomas: That's like, man, we need to, yeah, we get our banter on. Yeah, get bantering. And why were we out of banter? Well, because of all the gavel gavels. There's so many out for everybody. Not just patrons. There're so many Out. Check it out if you'd like. That complaint by Justin Baldoni is something. I'll say it's something officially. And we have more coming out very soon. I want to say, though, maybe more importantly to this fine audience, High Court number one, High Court numero uno is out on patreon.com/law.

0:01:31 Lydia: Let's get some bantering. Oh man. Yeah. Yes.

0:01:58 Thomas: Go get your High Court. It's a work in progress. We discovered, you'll hear very quickly, that there are practical concerns with trying to record with someone who's purposefully high. Lots of problems. Lots of minor issues.

0:02:10 Lydia: That's what makes it fun, you know?

0:02:11 Thomas: Issues. It was, yep, yep. Something where Matt was like, you don't have to edit this. And I was like, yeah. And then I listened to it. I was like I definitely have to hit this because there's a lot going on, but it's a lot of fun. We want you to listen and also tell us what you think for the next high court, you know, because this was our first attempt, but I think there might be better ideas in terms of how to do it, what to cover. This is just the beginning. Matt told me he's got a lot more high to go. He's got plenty of high, plenty of high where that came from. Yeah. We're not going to run out of high. But I was saying, you you know, maybe, maybe I ought to do something.

0:02:35 Lydia: He's committed to high, yeah. Yeah. Ooh.

0:02:42 Thomas: Maybe it shouldn't just be him. I don't know what, but we gotta, we gotta figure it out.

0:02:45 Lydia: And then I have to edit all you guys. Try and make sense of it.

0:02:46 Thomas: So listen in, listen, yeah, listen in and tell us patreon.com. And you can avoid this ad break there as well. It's the place to go. So thanks to our patrons and we'll be giving you extra thanks later with Lydia Smith joining for the patron shout outs, which we do every week. It'S so much fun. So we'll see you then. And I can't wait. So after this break, we'll get to Heather Veronini with the answer to last week's bar our question.

0:02:58 Lydia: We sure will.

0:03:12 Thomas: Heather Varanini, how are you doing this week?

0:03:14 Heather: I'm doing great. How are you, Thomas?

0:03:16 Thomas: Doing well. This was such a fun question. I mean, I say that now before knowing if I got it wrong, but like there's a lot here. I love it. There's a Lot to Digest. It was very interesting. Why don't you remind us what this question was?

0:03:22 Heather: Well, we had our friend Martha Sitz, who was a seller of office chairs, and she sued the manufacturer of the chairs Comfort For You for breach of contract. But before the trial happened, she was injured and needed to substitute. She needed to be substituted as the plaintiff. So at trial, though, Comfort for You called as a witness the priest. His name is Alberto. And they were going to ask him about a conversation that he had with Martha at a church function. And Martha had this conversation with him in confidence about the fact that she received these fully functional chairs. Errors, but learned that one of the competitors were offering a lower price and she wanted to get out of the contract. So we're really trying to figure out whether or not the objection that Martha's attorney raised, which was on the basis of clergy penitent privilege, how the court is going to rule on that objection. Are they going to allow that objection to stand or not? So we have answer choice A, overruled because the privilege can be invoked only by the person who made the confidential statement. B, overrule because the circumstances under which Martha made the the statement, take it outside the scope of the privilege. C, sustained because Martha's statement was made to Alberto in confidence. Or D, sustained, because this is not a criminal case. So you identified this as an evidence question, but you had, you were a little feeling like it might have been on the verge also of civil procedure. So, you are right to identify it as an evidence question. That's exactly what it is.

0:04:45 Thomas: Oh, good.

0:04:45 Heather: Yeah. And also, sometimes questions like this, which are based on privilege, they can also come up in the context of civil procedure. And I'll explain why briefly, which is that when we're talking about discovery in civil procedure and whether or not materials are discoverable, privilege can prevent the discovery process or for materials being discovered. So that's where there's a little bit of overlap between evidence and civil procedure. So I think if your brain was going, well, I think there's a little bit of privilege in civil procedure too, that's what comes up is around discovery. But you were also right to say, yes, this is evidence. And also it's based in the privilege, because it says right here that her attorney objected on the basis of clergy penitent privilege. So we knew right away that we were talking about whether or not there was some special protection afforded to communication, to some communication that would prevent the compelled or forced disclosure in court. So that's generally what a privilege is. That's just a fancy way of saying, do you have to share that conversation that you had in court? Yes or note. And there really is a clergy penitent privilege that does exist.

0:05:05 Thomas: Interesting. Yeah. I never said there wasn't.

0:05:46 Heather: No, not you, but if there's someone out there going, that sounds a little bit strange. Is that real?

0:05:53 Thomas: Look, we live in America. That's not a very religious place. It's not very strange to me.

0:05:57 Heather: Okay, good. Yeah. And for those of you who might not know a penitent, I think you could probably guess from what Thomas was saying. It's just a person who's making penance or really confessing.

0:06:07 Thomas: It is a person who kneels down before the swinging blade gets you in the third Indiana Jones movie. That's Penitent is.

0:06:16 Heather: That's the penitente.

0:06:17 Thomas: The Last Crusade? Yeah, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusader, I believe. What a movie.

0:06:21 Heather: Great film. Some jurisdictions recognize the clergy penitent privilege.

0:06:27 Heather: Yeah, not all of them. So it will depend on where you're at. But for the purposes of this, we're just presuming that it exists.

0:06:27 Thomas: Not all? Oh, okay. Oh, we are. Oh, OK, OK.

0:06:34 Heather: Yeah. And a penitent, so the person who's confessing has the privilege of refusing to disclose and to prevent others from disclosing their confidential communications to the person that's a member of the clergy. So they can want to keep that private. And you were mentioning, does it matter whether or not there was a guardian that substituted? And the answer is it can be claimed by the person who made the confidential confidential communication, the penitent, or a guardian or conservator or personal representative if that person is injured or dead a lot of times. Yeah.

0:07:03 Thomas: OK. So it was testing. So potentially that was a point where it could have been a problem. So that's why they included that? OK. Well, I wasn't tripped up by that.

0:07:09 Heather: Yeah, because I think it's easy to get tripped up. You're like, no, I'm sailing right over it. Can't fool me.

0:07:14 Thomas: Yeah. Well, also, I mean, it was the attorney. I don't, you know what I mean? Like, I don't know if that did that matter or are you still assuming like if it was when there's a guardian, is Martha's attorney acting as Martha or as the guardian? You know what I mean? Like, it seems all the same, but

0:07:18 Heather: No, no. It's a good question. So when that's happening, basically two things are happening. When there's a guardian substituted in this case, the guardian's acting on Martha's behalf, then you have the attorney who's acting On behalf of the guardian, because you were saying that an attorney kind of does is everything for you more or less. And that's exactly what's happening.

0:07:45 Thomas: Interesting.

0:07:45 Heather: They're kind of stepping in. Yeah.

0:07:46 Thomas: So I suppose if it needed to be the literal person, then maybe Martha's attorney doing it in this instance, you're saying might not have flown because Martha's Attorney is now kind of acting in the guardian's name, sort of.

0:07:59 Thomas: Or is that too abstract a question to you?

0:07:59 Heather: Yeah, well, no, I don't I think I get it a lot of times since the attorney is acting like that's not really a question, I think, because the attorney's just treated as the stand in for the other for the plaintiff for the defendant.

0:08:12 Thomas: OK, that's what I thought. But like, so I suppose what I'm saying is then it was still really weird to include the guardian thing, because even if the guardian couldn't invoke this privilege, Martha's attorney did anyway. So like, OK, so it's just a yeah, it's a weird thing. All right.

0:08:26 Heather: Exactly. It's in a lot of times stuff like that will be added in to try to trip somebody up to say yeah, exactly. It's a fancy distractor or not so fancy.

0:08:29 Thomas: Yeah, just it's juste trying to distract me.

0:08:36 Thomas: And I would say it worked because in the real world, I have like less than two minutes to answer a question. And in Thomas takes the bar exam land, I can take like 20 minutes. So and that would have definitely sent me for a thought spiral for a minute. Yeah.

0:08:51 Heather: I think I heard you say right away or eliminate answer choice a right away right and that's kind of what the conversation we're having now is getting at right is about who can invoke what I'll say is this is that there are some privileges in which how it's used matters and who uses it matters this is not one of those privileges meaning that it can be invoked by like I was saying before this can be invoked either by the person Martha her guardian and that sort of thing.

0:09:17 Thomas: All right. Cool.

0:09:17 Heather: So it's who is invoking at this point doesn't matter. So you were right to eliminate answer choice A. You also eliminated answer choice D. And you were saying, I heard you say too, that criminal case and that the wording was too broad.

0:09:28 Thomas: Yeah, there's a couple reasons. But criminal case seemed just too broad because it's not just like, well, Martha can't confess to a murder. It's like, no, like what if I don't know. There's a lot. It felt really broad. Like all it had to be is like related to a criminal case. And then potentially this privilege goes out the window. Know, I also realized that toward the end that like, I don't know if this will be a reason to eliminate it, but when I read that D answer and not, and don't add anything to it, like out of context, it's kind of crazy to be like objection sustained because this is not a criminal case. It's sort of like it is a thing the bar does that I can't, I'm not actually sure if it, this is a valid way to judge questions or not, but like, it sort of saying yes, because one of the exceptions isn't in play, which is not really, I think that's like not quite quite logically sound because it's more like, yes, because thing, except sometimes they're objections. You know what I mean?

0:10:19 Heather: Yeah.

0:10:19 Thomas: Rather than like, yes, we're not in an exception. It's like a weird logic thing. And I actually don't know for sure if the bar exam, or at least the questions that you're drawing from, like, I don't know how they treat that logically speaking.

0:10:31 Heather: No, it's a good question. I'm glad that you bring that up because I come at it from a different perspective, which is that there are some rules and evidence that it matters whether or not it's a criminal or civil case.

0:10:41 Thomas: Your perspective is having actual knowledge. I want to make clear, Heather, that it will always be better. You're like, well, the way I come as, I just like know the information that you need to know.

0:10:47 Heather: And so No, no, no. No, it's not that. It's even, sorry. So even in approaching an evidence question, a lot of times it's like, there's some steps that you walk through approaching an evidence question whether it's on an essay and on the bar exam. And one of those questions, a lot times that you're asking initially is, is this criminal or civil?

0:11:04 Thomas: Yeah.

0:11:05 Heather: And again, it's because sometimes it will matter. So for example, and again, we're not going to get in the weeds, but with character evidence, it matters. The rules change. This is not one one of those instances.

0:11:16 Thomas: I'm teasing you, but like, I know that it can matter if it's a criminal case or not. I just don't know if that's one of these instances. So like, if I knew that, then that would be a very easy way to get past this answer. But I'm having to approach the logic of it. I'm curious. I need like one like logician to listen to that.

0:11:33 Thomas: Well, I need one person who's specifically trained in like mathematical logic to tell me the answer to this.

0:11:29 Heather: You walked through a really good point by saying a couple of things such as, this is really broad, and where does it stop? Because then basically we're saying, if it is a criminal case, do we then have an exception whereby every time a penitent goes to a clergy member and confesses a crime, and then they got hauled to the witness stand? They'd be there a lot.

0:11:57 Heather: I think you had said that, and I thought that was, yeah, and it's a really astute point to make to say the logic of that is bad, because then you're hauling.

0:11:58 Thomas: Oh, I did say that for sure. Yeah, it feels like they'd be around a lot, like just all the time.

0:12:07 Heather: Yeah, well, and then the first thing that I thought was the sex abuse scandals.

0:12:11 Thomas: I know, I actually thought of that too, but I was like, well, I don't know if that exactly applies. I don'T know if it's like the priests confessing to each other and that's why they didn't tell, or is it? I don' t know.

0:12:19 Heather: Well, I mean, if we apply that logic, right, because priests do confess to each other, at least in the Catholic Church. And so think about, so one of the criticisms of the new Pope is that he didn't act fast enough or quickly enough or swiftly or, yeah, agreed,

0:12:32 Thomas: Heather, I'm going to go ahead and assume that's a criticism of whoever the Pope would have been, has been, was, is, ever, will be. Without knowing any of the facts. Just like, hey, I'm going to guess. I don't even know who it is. You can have a question mark face. I'm gonna say, you know, one of the criticisms of question mark faces now the Pope is they didn't act fast enough in this child abuse scandal. And wouldn't you know it, it would be correct every single time.

0:12:53 Heather: Right? And I think I'm laughing only because, so I was born and raised Catholic. And so I'm laughing because this hits home in an interesting way. And so you start to have priests confessing to each other, and then they never end up on the stand.

0:13:05 Thomas: It's like the having the lawyer in the room thing for the lawyer, you know, for the attorney client privilege thing. Like, hey guys, technically I'm confessing to you right now. You know, like, come on.

0:13:14 Heather: I mean, I think in my mind, I think, you know, using this as an example, we would have theoretically, if they were mandatory reporters, as you started talking about, we wouldn't have theoretically seen these kinds of cases a lot longer ago than we did, like 30 years ago, or 40 or 50 years ago, and we didn't. So I think walking down that logical path in my my mind, that's where I get to.

0:13:31 Thomas: Yeah. Let me make my hyper -specific and probably irrelevant logical point, which is like by analogy if someone says, okay, Thomas goes to the store every Thursday because he needs to buy groceries, but not if it's raining. And then you said, why did Thomas go to the store? And then he answered, because it wasn't raining. It's like, well, that's not really why, like, that's not really the because. The because is because I need groceries. I don't know if that's exactly analogous. I'm trying to fit it in my mind, but like, it is always, it's a weird thing the bar does. And I'm Trying to figure out if I can reliably like use that to, to tell me me seven questions I actually don't know because you'd be kind of assuming the part where I need groceries.

0:14:09 Heather: Well, and I think you also get to the point about part of the reason why we identify the sub topic, we try to identify the subtopic that is testing like privilege is that it's just for this reason, in the sense of if you're going the logic route, right, you're saying you're still to your point, you'RE NOT getting at the answer that's related specifically to clergy penitent privilege, you can answer another question without getting to that. And the best answer always has to be correct based on the facts. And it has to answer the a question that's being asked, it has to do so directly. So I don't know if that helps answer question.

0:14:34 Thomas: It does. But I feel like when you told me that, I was like, that's awesome. Great advice. Love it. And then I feel a couple of questions later, there's a violation of that rule. And maybe I'm wrong. I'll have to go back to it. But that's what kind of had me questioning, like, wait a minute. I thought this would... But OK, that all aside, it sounds like I did ultimately eliminate D for good reason, though.

0:14:54 Thomas: Are you saying the criminal case thing is too broad? And also, well, it turns out this is not one of those privileges that depends on whether whether or not it's criminal or civil. Okay.

0:15:01 Heather: That's exactly right. It applies in all cases. And so you're right. So you're correct to eliminate A and D and then have it down to B and C.

0:15:08 Thomas: Ooh, B and C. So Thomas's second chance. Love it. It's still alive.

0:15:12 Heather: Yeah, alright. So just as a reminder, the overruled means the statement comes in and can be admitted as evidence and then sustained means that it stays out. So we have C, which is sustained because Martha's statement was made to Alberto in confidence. So, you hit at a really good point here talking about about the confidential portion. And I really loved, your mind went in a direction that I never considered, which is that we would be getting into a funky sort of place if this is a limiting rule, if this tends to be a limiting role that's around some kind of Christian religion. And I think you hit on this, especially at a time in which the Supreme Court's dealing with a lot of cases dealing with the First Amendment religion. Yeah.

0:15:46 Thomas: Yeah. We're not there yet. I mean, eventually it'll just be a Christian thing, but like I figure, you know, the principle historically shouldn't have been biased just for one religion.

0:15:56 Heather: I mean, and then my friend says, I'm going to shit all over you. Because that's actually exactly what happens here, year, which is that the rule is that what has to happen is that the confidential communications has to be by the penitent to a member of the clergy in the clergy members capacity as a spiritual advisor. So often that means that that statement is being made in the confessional or during a counseling session.

0:16:18 Heather: And so it ends up being pretty limited. Yeah.

0:16:21 Thomas: Well, I felt like there was a strong chance that was true. I think that's wrong. I feel like it shouldn't be that, but yeah, it is interesting thing that it does kind of bias like it feels like other religions don't have that exact thing so like they are just out of

0:16:34 Heather: So yeah, so it feels it does feel like there's a strong bias in favor of Western religions, especially I think the language of during a counseling session, so that's presuming that other religions maybe have some counseling function, which may be kind of allow for a broader scope. But again, this is looking or feeling, I think to your point, a lot like it's kind of biasing in favor of Western Christian religions. But I don't know if we're certain. And again, the clergy penitent privilege will depend on the state that you're in. This is like state by state. It's not part of the federal rules of evidence. And so what one state looks like might be a little bit different than another's. That does unfortunately mean that C is out and B is our correct answer.

0:16:59 Thomas: Luck wow so it turned out that it is more specific I'm glad I feel good about second chance I feel like I nailed every aspect of this it's just that I went with what the rule should be because I I feellike I think it's really kind of crappy to give me the inconfidence part because that really feels like what should matter you know there's nothing something magical about like, hold on, I'm now putting on my counseling hat.

0:17:32 Thomas: It's like, they're the priest, they're, you know, it's the person you talk to the same way. It just doesn't matter if it's in a different room and you're doing it in confidence. It would be one thing if it hadn't said in confidence, I think I would have guessed B. I think it would have been most likely to guess B because you can imagine, oh, it is out of fundraisers, people around, maybe people over here, you now. And so, I would've been like, yeah, okay, that is more, that's less going to be a privileged conversation. But like, in confidence?

0:17:25 Heather: Or yes yeah yes yes yes yeah

0:17:56 Thomas: Come on, like, I don't know, That's dirty tricks. I think this question was very tricky. Well, there you go.

0:18:00 Heather: Yeah I agree second chance bar wins

0:18:03 Thomas: The Christians win again. Yeah. The Christian's and Thomas's second chance bar exam wins again. Ah, but that primary score is down to 57 .58, which I don't love. I don' love.

0:18:13 Heather: Again I'll try harder next

0:18:16 Thomas: Oh, well, what a fiend. You'll try harder. No, I'll try harder what a fiendish question though. I love it. And I do. I do it's one where like, okay, I feel good. Cause I really, I felt like I had it all laid out and I even got got to the right second chance answer. And I projected in the future and I was like, why is this going to be wrong? Well, Heather will tell me it has to specifically be in the little pillow fort in the church. And that was what it was.

0:18:39 Thomas: I'm a time traveler. So, you know, I feel pretty good about this actually. All in all.

0:18:39 Heather: Time did you I have to ask did you I can't remember if you said that you grew up catholic or in a

0:18:46 Thomas: No, it's not really my half. My family is Catholic now, but they converted a little later. So

0:18:49 Heather: Christian oh okay so you didn't grow up going to confession

0:18:53 Thomas: No, I very strange, very strange. You know, Mormons have that too. I hear a lot about like, well, it is really weird and gross. It is like you have to, I feel like it's just, it might just be the girls or maybe it's, I can't remember. There's a really sexist, weird, gross thing where some horny men who call themselves religious leaders have underage girls tell them all the sex stuff they've done, which is like, this is, I'm not a fan of religion. If anybody didn't know that it's a, it's not a, I don't know.

0:19:19 Thomas: It's just an opportunity for weird horny man to do weird stuff is in my opinion. It's like the primary function. That's super weird. So I'm, I'm uncomfortable with the whole thing and glad I didn't grow up with it. Uh, and I think it's bad and shouldn't exist. So especially, I mean even just this I get people have their religion this component of it where you like confess your stuff to a weird horny man is not something that should exist in my view but that's just me

0:19:40 Heather: No. Well, and I think what's interesting is, is I'll just say really briefly that so all of my family on one side, we grew up Catholic and pretty much all going to the same school and church and stuff. And we had a conversation not that long ago, since my niece was just with her first Holy Communion, one of the sacraments. And you're talking about what it was like to go through communion for our first time, and you're pretty young when it happens. And they want you to come up with sins. So like you, for people who don't know, so you have to like come up with a sin right and when you're really young like a lot of times people haven't done anything that's that bad and it's really it's like and so we were having all these conversations about like well what did what was the first thing that you said and it'S like you some you just make up stuff because it's just like oh I

0:20:19 Thomas: Killed a guy they should I hope I hope they

0:20:20 Heather: Listen I should have I should like stone cold walked in there and been like I murdered a man you know and like been like eight you know but like but it was just but I think to your point I mean I think it's Just it can be we were just having this conversation about how...

0:20:22 Thomas: Go really hard yeah be like I confess I killed a priest who um was molesting kids who was molested kids and then then if they tattle on you it's like oh you can tell about that but you can't tell about the molesting kids. Okay.

0:20:36 Heather: Ask too many questions. Oh. Right? No.

0:20:48 Thomas: Oh, I hate it. But yeah, no, that's weird. Weird and gross. And so is this question. No, this question was good.

0:20:52 Heather: Good.

0:20:52 Thomas: It was really fun. I love this question. It's great. So we'll find out if other people got the very specific circumstances of this privilege or not. We'll see on the interwebs here. Great participation. This week, we've got the usual like four suspects on Blue Sky, which I love. Thank you so much, my four Blue Sky friends. Friends. It seems like more people maybe got this one right than I was just about to say than I did. That's a cool one. More people got it right than I did but more that's not anything. No more more people chose B, maybe like 50/50 on the B and C. A couple people at a I think D but no some folks got it. Right I still think I think my logic is sound. I disagree with the answer to this question though I suppose when people were answering they didn't hear that but yeah I think I think being in confidence should be the key there. But apparently the law disagrees with me. Constitution or something disagrees me. But let's see. On Blue Sky, on OpenArgs, on Blue Sky. I better pick a winner. It's going to be really hard. There's a lot of good ones. So Carl, zip code Z -I -P -P K -O -D -E on BlueSky says, B, bringing in a third person will void your priest penitent privilege, just like it'll void your marriage. Did I say marriage? I meant spousal privilege, they say.

0:22:13 Thomas: And then let's C. someone else. Chris Rock. Wow. We got Chris Rock playing at crockpot .dev. Oh, they got a different thingy. For T3B, I think the answer is B. They were at a fundraiser, which presumably would not provide a lot of opportunity for assumption of privacy. So I don't think the priest would be bound. And they also said, by the way, the fraud fishy hates Cheetos, et cetera, is a reference to the Jonathan Coulton song Code Monkey. Yeah. And I just bring that up because I actually met the the real fake fraud, not the real, the fake fraud fishy person I met at the Portland Gam Live show. So that was fun. No idea on the real fraud fishy. Hates everything. I don't remember if I've met them or not, but you know, say hi if you see me. Yeah. It's interesting because both those answers do talk about that. And I specifically talked about that, but the fact that the question says in confidence really told me that it's not as though, and again, I'm supposed to not fight the question. So I see in confidence that tells me that this is not a loud conversation next to a bunch of people. This is like a private conversation. And so I thought that even though I very much anticipated this problem, I thought that would be enough. But it doesn't seem to be. So I'm not, I guess what I'm saying is I'mnot a hundred percent sure if if that reasoning that they both had that it's like, you know, public event rather than private. I'm not sure if that logic is ultimately the thing or is it? Is it? What do you think?

0:23:33 Heather: So it's a good... I think that's a Good Way to Think about it too. I think that definitely bolsters the analysis, but it doesn't turn on that as much as it turns on the fact that the clergy penitent privilege really is more about making that confidential communication in the clergy member's capacity as a spiritual advisor. So it really has to be having that conversation in that capacity. And a lot of times the rule will hinge on, it seems to be hinging on kind of the location. Now it doesn't say that specifically because I think that would be too limiting.

0:24:01 Thomas: Yeah, I know. It's like so like here, step aside and let's go in this room and I will hear your confession. I I really still don't get how that question knows that it's for sure not in that capacity or how I'm supposed to know that.

0:24:10 Heather: And I think part of it's about, it's supposed to be either made in a confessional or like during a counseling session. And since this was a conversation that was kind of about her kind of, I don't want to say unloading on him, but really kind of saying like, guess what thing I did and telling him in confidence, it's less of a counseling section. It is a confession, but I don' know that it's a true confessional in that sense of where you have a spiritual advisor saying, I'm

0:24:28 Thomas: Sounds like confession to me. Yeah. Yeah.

0:24:36 Heather: Here to hear your confession. And I think really, if I was to say it's less about the location, but more in that capacity of, are we having an actual, is something that would insinuate from maybe the clergy's perspective that a counseling session had started or that they've started some kind of confession. I think that would maybe make a little bit more sense. If he had said, I'm here to take your confession, let's get that started. I think that might tip the scales a little bit.

0:25:00 Thomas: I feel like in every investigation, they should do that. Just like have a guy dress as a priest and walk in and be like, I'm here to take your confession. Then you're like, oh, okay. And then it's like, psych, I've got to go. I'm just dressed as a priestly. It's worth a try. Yeah.

0:25:12 Heather: Well, and I think you hit on exactly the reason that a lot of people answered C, at least on Reddit, was for the same reason, was that that, especially the in -confidence portion, it seems to make sense.

0:25:22 Thomas: I wish they hadn't put that. That was unnecessarily tricky because I really do think I would have probably gotten it right. But for that, and it's just like, man, really frustrating.

0:25:31 Heather: That's exactly part of what makes this question really tricky. Well,

0:25:34 Thomas: Well, there's a little bit more to be said on that on Patreon. But first, let's go to who'd you find on Reddit? Who's our big Reddit winner?

0:25:41 Heather: We actually had two that I thought were great. One was I'm underscore Austenist, I -M -M underscore Auston, who said, I'm guessing B, I think the clergy penitent privilege only applies to cases where the religion requires it for holy reasons or whatever. Since the statement was not made in the confession region of France, it was only in sparkling confidence and the privilege doesn't apply.

0:26:00 Thomas: That's funny.

0:26:01 Heather: This person was was also saying, I'm second -guessing myself pretty hard here, though, because my answer requires specific knowledge of Catholicism, and I'd be shocked but not surprised if this is what law students were tested on. And I think like we were talking initially in the episode, I would venture to guess that this idea that it is more about giving it in the clergy member's capacity as a spiritual advisor, that that would kind of go more broadly beyond Catholicism. Ideally speaking, again, some people at Reddit also made notes to our Christian nation in that as well.

0:26:30 Thomas: Yeah. Well and that was kind of the kicker reason that I went with C was like, yeah, this seems like it would favor one religion to have it be too specifically related to like confessing. And I really, man, I really did think there was a lot of reasons that should be B. But this is an interesting way to put it that maybe makes sense because this International Man of Mystery, Austin, that's how to assume what IMM is. I think putting it in the form of, well, this particular religion requires people tell priests their bad things. And it would be sort of unfair in a weird way if that meant that only this religion could get busted for crimes based on that thing they're required to do for their religion. Which is that's kind of an interesting way of looking at I don't know if that's the logic of it I'm not really sure if that'S like sound in terms of that'S why it exists like this but that is a way of Looking at it that I guess makes it a little bit less like favoring Catholicism or something and a little more like trying to put Catholicism on like an even footing in terms of being able to confess crimes I

0:26:54 Heather: Me too. Yeah.

0:27:34 Thomas: Guess I don'T know it'S kind of weird

0:27:36 Heather: Well, we had another answer from Megatrain that did a great job that said, so I would have actually expected Alberto himself to refuse to testify about the content of the confidential conversation, especially if it were a Catholic priest. They had the sanctity of the confessional drilled into their heads pretty good. Perhaps that tells us that he didn't consider it a true confession, probably not the most relevant factor. He could just be a bad priest or not Catholic. Plus, I think the privilege still belongs to the confessor. And it goes on to say, and while I'm pretty sure this privilege can apply in more cases than inside a literal confession booth, which is true, I think I'm going with B, simply telling the priest something in confidence isn't enough to trigger the privilege. But who knows, maybe she was bragging to him about it. Can you keep a secret? I'm ripping off this company. Company.

0:27:56 Thomas: Good point yeah good good point. I love that entire Megatrain of thought.

0:28:20 Heather: Me too.

0:28:20 Thomas: I like all of that because I don't totally think you can use the fact that Alberto in the question is not refusing to testify. I don't think you Can you use that really based on how bar questions go? But maybe I don't know, maybe that's part of it. And it kind of is a definitely good thought. It' s an interesting thought. And maybe that could have occurred to me. I don'' t know. I still think everything else would have still pointed me personally in the wrong direction based on what I think makes sense. But uh that's okay I think maybe this law doesn't entirely make sense but we'll see those are great answers though congrats to megatrain and imm austin and then we've got to go to our most important most important winners uh apologies everyone else but the most important winters are on patreon.com/law and we had some a lot of bees here's what I want to do this is very interesting because there is someone on here who very clearly seems to have some knowledge of maybe catholicism But they didn't, I don't think they attempted an answer, but they made some comments that kind of clarified things. So Gretchen says, it's not about speaking to the priest in confidence. It's about speaking of the priest as a penitent. It doesn't matter where the sacrament of penance confession happens. It doesn'T have to be in the muffled privacy of a confessional. One can seek penance from their confessor in any location. The distinction between penance and in confidence is this. Did she ask the priest to forgive it as a sin if she did then she has the expectation that the priest will hold it in confidence the priest can be questioned as to whether the statement was made in penitence or merely in confidence so that that's a very like catholic

0:29:56 Thomas: Specific reasoning that does kind of make sense so maybe that's the difference there what's interesting is yeah I don't I don't think gretchen anywhere that I can find attempted an answer but it does kind kind of clarify things.

0:30:08 Heather: Because again I think it really gets at that what's the purpose of why the penitent is sharing information and really and it gets to kind of the rule about how it has to happen in the clergy member's capacity as the advisor if that makes sense. Those two things kind of fit together but I think she did such a great, Gretchen did such a great job of explaining the other side of that instead of from the priest's side from the the penitent side

0:30:27 Thomas: Since Gretchen didn't attempt an answer per se, I think I got to give the official winning shout out to equals detour parentheses OA plus frolic parentheses T3BE. First time player here, winging it for the detours and frolics. Oh, love first time players. Thank you so much. B, the naming convention of penitent clergy privilege suggests it only applies when When the clergy person is in the specific role of or performing the specific functions of the religious order, while a church fundraiser may be a church sponsored activity, it is not a religious service and thus excluded from such privilege. I'm coming at it from an angle of a different profession with confidential communication therapists and imagining the difference between a client telling me this in a session versus at the grocery store. I think I said that exact thing, but it's a little bit weird when it's like the therapist, not the grocery store, but like it's in the therapist's office and it's a therapist fundraiser event for therapy. You know, it's, like, a little big, it' like a middle ground there and you're telling your therapist something like, I don't know, like using that analogy, I would kind of think if I go to my therapist fundraise or in my therapist's office and I'm like, hey, I just want to need to tell you something in confidence. I kind of thing I'm telling my therapist something in confidence, but you know, that's why it's such a hard question.

0:31:45 Heather: I also don't know what a therapy fundraiser looks like but

0:31:48 Thomas: Whatever yeah equals detour away and plus frolic t3b is the big patron winner lots of great participation thank you so much everyone boy this is a tough one I'm a little sour but you know I feel like it's one where I gave it my all and my all wasn't good enough and that's how it goes not really anything else to be said so I'm gonna give it my al again after this break we'll get question 71 all right heather let's have question 71 and I better get this one right because it is the The number of Macklin Celebrini, the new rookie, well, he's not a rookie anymore, I guess. He was a rookie. He'll be not a rookie next year on the San Jose Sharks, and he's amazing. Generational talent. I can't wait. Anyway, question 71.

0:32:23 Heather: Continue on a dark and stormy night a tanker sailing on the Ohio River ran into a large underwater pipe the pipe burst and sent millions of gallons of toxic chemicals into the

0:32:41 Thomas: Hey, maybe put that pipe further underwater. Just saying. You know, like if it's not underwater enough for a tanker to not hit it, maybe you need it to go more under the water. That's all. This is not a submarine, right? We're not a, we're not submarine running into it.

0:32:56 Heather: Water. Louisville sued the ship in federal court claiming severe damage to its historic riverfront. Does the federal court have jurisdiction over the matter?

0:33:03 Thomas: Oh, boy. Okay.

0:33:05 Heather: A, yes, because the case has a maritime nexus. B, yes because the case involves interstate commerce. C, no because Louisville is claiming damage to its riverbank. Or D, no because the accident did not occur at sea.

0:33:18 Thomas: Oh, my God. Come on. This seems so hard. Ah, okay. For category, I guess it's Maritime Law. No, we don't have a Maritime law. Okay. Well, then this will have to be... Wow. What is even this category? Okay. Let's see. This, oh, boy, sorry, Macklin. I'm going to disappoint you. We'll see when I get up to... Maybe I'll get one right by the time I get to Connor McDavid's number. It's a joke for four people. Okay. Okay. On a dark and summery night, is it constitutional law? I'm going to not eliminate that. Is it contracts? No. Is a criminal law? No, is evidence? No? Is it federal civil procedure? Possibly. Real property? No towards no. Okay. So at least that gives me, is it either federal civil procedures or constitutional law. I guess when you're saying, does the federal court of jurisdiction, I guess you could say federal civil procedural, but I also feel like the maritime stuff like that. I feel like that's like pretty constitution based. Like I think there's like a couple of things. I should read that thing someday. Like that would probably help if I'd ever read it. But I feel like there's something in there about like this maritime law stuff. And, you know, there's there's nothing about those jurisdictions and the whatever. So OK, if it was just a question. So like, for example, B is interstate commerce. If it was about that, I would probably say constitutional. But it's about jurisdiction. Does the federal court have jurisdiction? Yeah, I kind of think that's more constitutional. It's not really, ah, it's really close to either of those. Maybe I'll go, I'm going to Jedi mind trick this. Maybe I'll federal civil procedure just because I haven't had very many of those questions. And so I've had a lot of constitutional questions. So maybe Heather would have wanted to make sure I get a federal civil procedur one in there instead. So I guess I'll do that. I don't know. I kind of absent that fact, I would kind of lean more toward constitutional law, but I guess if you're saying, am I in the right court? That feels more civil procedury, but if it's like, am I in right court because what does this court have jurisdiction over and what is the federal, you know, like that feels constitutionally. So tiebreaker is I've had way fewer federal civil procedure ones. So I'm going to say it's that. This may be one of the few times I get that wrong even. We'll see. Okay. Tanker ran into a large underwater pipe. I'm going to go and say, I don't think it's the tanker's fault. Put that thing more underwater. How hard is it? You're already underwater. Is it that much harder to go 20 feet lower? Whatever the lowest ship is, your thing should be lower than that. I've just wanted to make that clear. Piper sends millions of gallons of toxic chemicals into the water. Louisville sued the ship in federal court. Wow, the ship. If I were the shipping company, I'd be like, whew, what a relief. They're suing the ship, not me. That's good. Yeah, screw that ship. The ship did it. I mean, who brought that? Whose ship is that? Yeah, sue the ship claiming severe damage to its historic riverfront. Does the federal court have jurisdiction over the matter? Okay. So the Ohio River. So is this going to be the key? For one, I claim this is bigotry because I don't live anywhere near this and don't know what the Ohio river really is. So I'm going to go ahead and say that I'm gonna assume it's a river somewhere near Ohio, but that could be wrong. And since it's A river, I'm Gonna go ahead And say that it's not the ocean, but it's a tanker. So probably, you know, who knows where it came from? I guess, is that going going to be the key that's like the oceans are basically going to be federal government because of the oceans, but then the river itself, like in between, like that, presumably that's within some state's border. And so it's going to me more about that. So maybe that's the trick of the question plus a hundred other tricks that I'm not sure I'm going to able to see. Okay. Federal court sued the ship in federal court. I don't know why it says shoot the ship. It's so funny to me. If I get hit by a car, I'm suing your car. I'm doing this car. Damn it. See you you in court. Beep, beep. Does the federal court have jurisdiction over the matter? Okay, here we go. A, yes, because the case has a maritime nexus. Oh God. Maritime nexus? I don't think that's right because it's not in the ocean. I do think that that is going to matter. I think oceans, they're sort of outside the state borders. So that's one thing. But when it's in the river, I just feel like rivers are part of states. That's not federal government. I don'T think the maritime nexis, is the fact that like the ship came from the ocean. I don't know what the maritime nexus would be. Yeah, I'm really not liking A, but this is such a weird, confusing question. I'm not sure I can eliminate it either, but I'm low, I'll say I'm slow on A. B, yes, because the case involves interstate commerce. Now that's interesting. I think that's just a attractive distractor because interstate Congress has to do with whether or not Congress can write a law. I don'T think that has anything to do with federal jurisdiction. Yeah ,I think B is a trick. I don' t think B. is it at all. I think that's more about Congress writing laws. I don't think that has anything to do with federal court jurisdiction. So I'm pretty, pretty low on B. And that's both the yes answers. That's interesting. See, no. So no, the federal court does not have jurisdiction, essentially, because Louisville is claiming damage to its riverbank. Why would that be what matters? I'll be honest. I'm not even sure I can understand where this one's going. I guess I don'T understand what the other possibility would be. Like, what else could Louisville be suing for? I don' t really... Like, is there a thing, just the logic of that answer, no, because Louisville is claiming damage to its riverbank, suggests that if it were claiming damage in some other way, that that would allow it to be in federal court. But I don't, that really doesn't make a lot of sense. Like, I don'T know what else, because usually the federal court thing, well, usually isn't it the 75 ,000 plus like diversity jurisdiction -y stuff, like people in different states, or if it's a violation of like federal law, maybe, or something like that. And I think there's a couple other exceptions, and I think one of those exceptions might be maritime law. D, no, because the accident did not occur at sea. Well, given everything, I think D is far and away my preferred answer. Okay, I Think I might at least see what's going on here in this question, or at least I'm gonna go with what better be what's going on, otherwise I have no chance. The old, I always like to use the old example of the drunk guy looking for the keys under the street lamp, and it's like, did you drop them there? No, it's the only place I can see, so I'm going to search there. Kind of thing. I think what's going on here is it's going to be between A and D. I think that B, the interstate commerce, I'm pretty sure that's just not the thing is the wrong. Others say it's the wrong page in her notebook. It's not. I don't think that's that's what we're doing here. C, no, because Louisville is claiming damage to its riverbank. That's I that's incomprehensible to me. I don't understand what that means. And I think it's just I hope that's just some weird, tricky answer. I think the key is between A &D and A is saying yes, because the case has a maritime maritime nexus and d is saying no because the accident did not occur at sea so the key is like I guess we're to believe and people who went to law school would know maybe which was my instinct that maritime law stuff is federal yeah it makes sense you're at sea no one state owns the sea and so stuff at sea federal court got it but what happens when a tanker goes from the sea to a river to go to port somewhere and then has a problem does the fact that if there's such a thing as a a maritime nexus? Like, is that enough to say, well, we're still going to sue in federal court because it's not like you're just like a state tanker. You know, it's Not like they're a they're a tanker that only exists in the state of Ohio or whatever, you know, It's like, I think that's what's going on here. And so the question will be, does it matter that it has a maritime nexus or is it just about whether or not the accident occurred at sea? I could really go either way because on one hand, I feel like a maritime Nexus is a weird thing. Like I can't really, I don't remember any wording about that ever. And I don t know what would give something a maritime nexus. You know, it seems like it's, I dunno, I can't imagine that. Like, I don't know what else that would apply to. Like if a maritime Nexus is a common thing, I don't what other things are that other than ships. It's just like, well, it's a ship or something. It s a ship that tends to go, that either came from, we don't have any facts in the case, in the question about where it came from or anything like that. So I guess for all we know, it could be a tanker that only exists on the river somehow. Doesn't seem right, but maybe. On the other hand, I could see it being weird that if a tankers has an accident and spills oil just off the coast and it just kills your state, like it's just totally ruining your state's oceanfront and everything, then you can sue in federal court. But if it happened to like drift just a little bit into a river and then do that same thing, then, you can't sue it in federal court? I don't know though. The more I think about it, the more I'm worried. I think it it might be D because we get nothing in the question. And this burned me last time, but if I'm sticking to the question, I'm not finding the question there's nothing about any ocean anything at all. It just says tanker sailing on the Ohio river ran to a large underwater pipe. It burst sent toxic chemicals into the water. Louisville sued the ship in federal court claiming severe damage to its historic riverfront. So there's Nothing in there whatsoever about the ocean about, you know, and so like the maritime nexus, I'm not even sure from the question other than just my assumptions of the fact that it's a ship and it probably came from the ocean. Maybe I don't, I think I'm gonna have to go D. I don'T know. I think it's between D and A. I THINK I'M GONNA GO WITH D BECAUSE I JUST DON'T, I THINK MAYBE I'M ADDING TOO MUCH TO THE QUESTION TO GIVE IT THIS MARITIME NEXUS AND I DON'T REMEMBER ANYTHING ABOUT A MARITime nexus. I DONT KNOW WHAT WOULD GIVE YOU OR GIVE A CASE OR WHATEVER, A CONFLICT, A MARitime nexis. SO I'M BETWEEN A AND D AND I'M GOING WITH d final answer and if you'd like to play along go to blue sky search open args quote skeet the question that's been getting posted every week lately that's awesome second best place to go is reddit .com slash r slash open arg and there you can go participate uh comment upvote you can the thing will track your score it's super cool it's a great place that reddit go join that sub reddit it's good stuff reddit dot com slash r open argz and finally the best place to play the place where you get the most important shout outs is patreon .com slash law look for the post on this episode comment comment on each other's stuff it's great it's a fun time we read all of these and we enjoy them all the time so there you go that's how you play along thank you so much and uh thanks heather for another fun impossible question

0:43:22 Heather: Well, you're welcome.

0:43:24 Thomas: And just one thing left to do which is to thank our patrons that's right these are the folks who are the saints on patreon .com slash law who make this show happen just one new patron to to thank Joel Faller. Thank you so much for joining.

0:43:48 Lydia: Thanks for joining.

0:43:49 Thomas: Yeah. Most importantly though, the Hall of Famers, the all -time greats. These are the folks that pledge at that $5 level and above for at least a month and they get the most special of shout outs. And I'll be starting us off. So thank you so Much too. Unremarkable. I think you're very remarkable. Don't, don't sell yourself short. I remark on you all the time. Casey Kahn, democracy cannot survive unregulated capitalism. Well, good news. We got rid of democracy. So now it doesn't matter.

0:44:16 Lydia: Yeah. Irrelevant.

0:44:17 Thomas: That's how we solved that one. Yeah. Donna Treadaway, Mother of Harridans. I resubscribed so I can do names again. Oh, that's awesome.

0:44:24 Lydia: Awesome. Yeah.

0:44:25 Thomas: I did. I felt like we had an extra. That'S so cool. Welcome back. Vote Zoran Mamdani for NYC mayor. Yeah, gosh, I hope that's going well. Too depressed to check. Yeah I don't even want to know.

0:44:29 Lydia: To like keep an eye on it. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

0:44:36 Thomas: Protect trans kids. Also, the new team is stellar and the pod is better than ever. Well, thank you so much.

0:44:40 Lydia: Nice to hear that.

0:44:41 Thomas: If I had a hi -fi, if I had a hi‑fi.

0:44:44 Lydia: Is that the end of it?

0:44:45 Thomas: Yeah, that's it.

0:44:46 Lydia: Oh, then what?

0:44:46 Thomas: I was hoping, I know, I was hoping something would occur to me or you if I read it convincingly. But nope, if I had a hi-fi. I don't know, but it sounds great. Cyanitis. Disappointed in all the capitulating to fascism. Yeah. No kidding. Fourth Circuit attorney reluctantly changing her font. Sex and gender are different things. Apprentice of adventure. Still rooting for the hamburgers to deliver more timely justice than the current system. Unfrozen caveman lawyer. Nick Fish. Last week's fraud fishy joke was a reference to the song Code Monkey by Jonathan Coulton. Hey, oh, exciting news. I met the real fake fraud fishy.

0:45:19 Thomas: Oh, I think I might have already said this in the T3B part, but I need to tell you. Oh wait, I already told you also. Uh, now I'm realizing there's no point to be saying anything. I've already said everything that should ever be said.

0:45:28 Lydia: Hey, you never know.

0:45:30 Thomas: No, I met, I met the Real Fake Fraud Fishy. I don't know why I keep saying the Real fake fraud.

0:45:31 Lydia: I don't know why either.

0:45:34 Thomas: I met them in person. It was, it was very funny. A negative phenomenon. Vehicular man's laughter is out of battery still cavalri pineapple on pizza no wrong with it although we don't eat meat so like you need the ham you know like if you took away the ham then it's just pineapple and what oh what on

0:45:37 Lydia: So cool. We don't eat. Yeah. Yeah, the Hawaiian. Yeah. Canadian bacon. You mean it's not ham. It's Canadian bacon, isn't it? On Hawaiian pizza. Hawaiian pizza is Canadian bacon and pineapple, isn' it?

0:45:54 Thomas: Hawaiian pizza Am I crazy Hawaiians now we're both googling whoever googles it faster gets the right

0:45:59 Lydia: Hawaiian pizza and well, it says on either ham or bacon. I mean, Canadian bacon is is ham. So I guess I'm being pedantic.

0:46:05 Thomas: Answer okay I guess I've never heard of that I thought it was just ham but yeah it does say either ham or bacon okay importantly it doesn't say canadian bacon though

0:46:15 Lydia: Well, OK, because Canadian bacon is, I'm going to tell you, back bacon, a lean cured pork loin that is traditionally smoked and sliced. Ham-like flavor and texture. Yeah.

0:46:26 Thomas: Ham-like that's what I want out of my bacon that I don't eat is a ham-like flavor.

0:46:31 Lydia: Yeah. And then, of course, in the United States, we call it Canadian bacon. And in Canada, they just call it back bacon.

0:46:36 Thomas: Back bacon. Oh, what's their normal bacon? Is our, is both our normal bacons the same?

0:46:39 Lydia: I think so. And then yeah, and then they're into back bacon too.

0:46:43 Thomas: It's like, like the dollar's the same, but then ours is a little bigger, smaller. I don't know. You gotta fight for your right to ex parte. Jay Sank. Chunks. Yeah. There's some chunks. Even, oh God, I'm excited about this one. Even a blind squirrel can find these nuts. Of course, a reference to gavel gavel and chunks Chunks was a reference to gavel gavel. Thank you so much, gavel gavleteers.

0:47:01 Lydia: It was your gavel heads.

0:47:09 Thomas: Gavaleer. Yeah, gaVELheads. Look, I finally changed my name for real legally. Thomas Freeman and Cajun Killa. All right, your turn.

0:47:14 Lydia: All right. Thank you to Elliott T Fraud Fishy Hates Everything. Oh, you met them, right? You met them. Right. The real fake fraud fish.

0:47:22 Thomas: That's extremely, extremely good joke. That's the hardest you've ever acted for a joke. You actually had me going because I was like, you never do that. Okay, this is good. We're unlocking a new, Lydia leveled up. It's good.

0:47:37 Lydia: Chris Simpson. Love the extra episodes. I love the Democrats. Fecklessness is my fetish, baby. Gabblehead checking away. Chunking away. Yeah.

0:47:45 Thomas: I think, I hope they mean chunking away, but chucking is good now. I will say chunking way.

0:47:50 Lydia: Yeah, chunking away Mark Schultz, the Cincinnati kid, Bob Loblaw's law podcast, Philly basement bars back open and isn't taking this shit lying down. Elect Thomas Smith president American honky tonk Bar Association, Baltakatei, Philip Kizer, the Electoral College is DEI for red states. It absolutely is. Coryn_Lann. Hors d'oeuvres in the court before we report a string of unpronounceable characters. Malaika Chandler. Malcolm the Dragon the Precious Variant. Milo Meadsong is fighting petty tyrants. RhondaTheDork .com. Big Easy Blasphemy. FRED R GROOTHUIS. Chris Waltrip. Classic Libtard. And always at the top, Mitchell. Whoop, whoop.

0:48:30 Thomas: Yay. Thank you so much, top patrons. You made my day. I love how, look, nothing against the folks who keep their name the same every week. Nothing against it. I respect it. It does make me happier slightly when the folks change it because it's like, it's just a nice little interaction we get. And there's some good ones.

0:48:39 Lydia: You like what you like, you know? There are...

0:48:47 Thomas: Boy, there's Some good, good names this week. Well done, Gavelheads.

0:48:48 Lydia: We need banter in our relationship, and those folks are the ones that are helping to contribute to our healthy

0:48:52 Thomas: That's what they say. You know, is the banter stale? Is that, It's when, if you go to marriage counseling, like how's the, how's the banter?

0:48:56 Lydia: Relationship also if you watch any reality tv where you're where you have like british folks they need someone who can banter like you want you want the banter to be good that's really really important to

0:49:05 Thomas: I don't know. I only banter on the clock actually. I don'T, once we, once we clock out, I'm like, this is totally, yeah, no, I'M just very earnest.

0:49:11 Lydia: Them you just want to get paid for it banter

0:49:19 Thomas: All right. Well, another great week. No, tomorrow's the end of the week. All right, well, all right, well, another, another T3BE down. I hope I got this one right. We'll see. We will see, but we had fun along the way. Thank you so much for listening. Thanks most of all to our patrons and remember High Court

0:49:22 Lydia: Over it has not been a great week oh you got to check it

0:49:37 Thomas: On patreon .com go check it out and we'll see you very soon for rapid response friday well I wasn't recording you I accidentally hit recording the guest who's not here so now that laugh wasn't even there so now I answer differently I guess oh I hate it but yeah no that's weird weird and gross yeah screw that ship the ship did it I mean who brought that whose ship is that see you in court beep beep chunks

0:49:59 Lydia: Out oh oh okay

0:50:08 Heather: I murdered a man.